Question on buses

mordeith

I should probably just Google this but wanted some personal feedback. I was watching a vid on some producer and how he created a particular track. On one sound he had various effects such as reverb, eq etc (about five in total).
He then bused that track to another where he again placed a subtle reverb and more Eq. My question is why not put the second instances of the same effect last in the chain of the original track. He had plenty of slots. Is it a CPU thing?

Ravenholm

mordeith wrote: »

I should probably just Google this but wanted some personal feedback. I was watching a vid on some producer and how he created a particular track. On one sound he had various effects such as reverb, eq etc (about five in total).
He then bused that track to another where he again placed a subtle reverb and more Eq. My question is why not put the second instances of the same effect last in the chain of the original track. He had plenty of slots. Is it a CPU thing?

Dont think its a cpu thing.

he wasnt creating a group bus was he? Say a drum bus. Route all of the drums to one bus then apply subtle eq and compression to tie them together better.

mordeith

Ravenholm wrote: »

Dont think its a cpu thing.

he wasnt creating a group bus was he? Say a drum bus. Route all of the drums to one bus then apply subtle eq and compression to tie them together better.

No, if was a single sound, a preset in Massive. He loaded fx onto that channels fx insert and routed that to another fx insert where he applied more eq/reverb. He then routed that to another insert where he again applied eq. I'll see if I can track down the video.

Anima

I guess he wanted to route the first bus output into that additional effects but also route the first bus output somewhere else? So splitting the channel from that point. Otherwise he must of mixed in another channel on top of the additional effects channel.

If the video was him creating a bass, a lot of people split the base sound into different frequency bands and apply different processing on each band then mixing the output together.

That's the only thing I can think of. There isn't a CPU gain in splitting the channels like that, in fact it would be less efficient.

paulo6891

Is this not just parallel compression? And/or stereo widening?

mordeith

paulo6891 wrote: »

Is this not just parallel compression? And/or stereo widening?

There wasn't any compressors or widening plugins being used though. Driving me mad I can't find the video again!

mordeith

mordeith wrote: »

There wasn't any compressors or widening plugins being used though. Driving me mad I can't find the video again!

Right well I found the video. There is stereo widening plugins in being used (ignore my previous :rolleyes:) but agaain wht send to two other channels with similar effects? You can see him go through the processing from about 3.00 mins.
Now you have 10 fx slots in FLStudio per channel so maybe he is doing it because of that limitation but why all the EQs. Surely if the first one is done right there is no need for the others?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht0Fnfkl7Qk

Anima

Yeah he basically went a bit OTT with the effects. EQing before and after the compressor made no sense either, he could have done that in one instance. When he splits off from the first bus, he's just sending it to some more effects to make it fatter when summed altogether again. I'm not sure it really adds much to be honest as the sound itself sounds fairly basic. Maybe he's just trying to make it seem more "impressive" than it is.

Also for sounds like that, it's best to do it all in Patcher for FLStudio. That way you can save the arrangement and not pollute the main mixer.